Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Energy Efficiency Rules For TVs Sold In California

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the free-markets-are-just-too-wacky-and-non-linear dept.

Television 609

petehead writes "The LA Times reports on regulations expected to pass in 2009 that will not allow energy-inefficient TVs to be sold in the state. 'State regulators are getting ready to curb the growing power gluttony of TV sets by drafting the nation's first rules requiring retailers to sell only the most energy-efficient models, starting in 2011... The regulations would be phased in over two years, with a first tier taking effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and a more stringent, second tier on Jan. 1, 2013.'" According to the Energy Commission's estimates, purchasers of Tier 1-compliant TVs would shave an average of $18.48 off their residential electric bill in the first year of ownership.

cancel ×

609 comments

First!!! (-1, Troll)

Cnik70 (571147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362793)

first post!!!!!

First Mac!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363173)

A giant customized Starbucks in Cupertino California where lattes and no soy skim macchiatos are given out free to all employees. The background music involves a playlist of Nora Jones, David Matthews, John Mayer, and Bono on loop from an Ipod docked somewhere in the Apple/Starbucks facility. Hours are long but morale is surprising high as developers, hardware and software, are given 30 minute breaks to masturbate to the new itunes interface.

All developers sit at cafe type tables with a Mac Book Pro while their lord and master Steve Jobs stands deskless in his predictable attire of a turtleneck and jeans. In fact, this is the preferred (mandatory) dress code at Apple. Jobs walks around to each and every department, separated by latte and vegan preferences, and checks on the performance and efficiency of his developers. At any given point in the day one may see Mr Jobs yelling at a programmer for not implementing a button in the perfect shade of corn flower blue (#6495ED) and immediately sends him to the apple punitive chamber, consisting of a HP Compaq running Vista Basic.

There are 2 software development departments and 2 hardware development sections in Apple. For software there is the Apple core team, Apple Open Source team. In hardware there is the Apple systems and management team and the iDevice team. Since the OSX kernel consists of a BSD darwin kernel there is no real need for low level programmers and as such the entirety of the Apple core team consists of UI designers and photoshop junkies. All software churned out from the core team is designed in a program strikingly similar to Visual Studio's form designer but with Cocoa Objective C generated instead. The 16 hour day (Jobs demands 16 hour days since he himself never sleeps) of a core dev involves lining up the right shade of chrome with the latest photoshopped graphite button and maintaining the correct color scheme, not an easy job at all.

The Apple open source team involves a little bit more coding, which is mandated to be done in TextEdit or the option of a $80 third party mac text editor. The Apple open source team doesn't actually create much code but searches the internet for interesting BSD licensed software and modifies it as it's own through obfuscation and conversion to objective C. Many of the items a mac user sees comes from the open source world stamped by apple such as the ability to play music taken from 67 different originally linux based players, CD burning, and the overall ability to click a mouse. Apple's legal department has no qualms about this practice and has assured many that since most of the code is BSD and if any is GPLed many Linux hippies should be grateful that Apple fostered WebKit by using KHTML and adding some Gecko bloat. Perhaps one of the most important items that the open source team has done to date is use parts of the FreeBSD to keep the kernel up to date.

There's not much to say about the Apple systems and management team. I suppose they can be classified in to desktop and laptop systems. Because hardware work is beneath Apple in general and thought of being only worthy of Windows Users and as such can be found working on these beauties in the starbucks bathroom. Desktops are currently made by buying dell machines and putting them in Lian Li cases, where the majority of the costs goes to buying titanium Apple emblems to paste on the sides. Laptops consists of the rebranding of only the most silver and black Sony Viaos but talk has been going around about rebranding Asus EeePCs for a new Apple netbook but you didn't hear that from me, for fear of my life.

The iDevice team's job is to develop for the ipod, iphone, itouch, and many other portable electronics apple may release in the future. Their jobs are very interconnected with the open source team as well as the core dev team. Using firmware from random samsung devices and giving it an OSX skin the ipod stands as a shining example that infringement only applies to greasy file sharers and that the music player remains the best in market. The 16-24 hour day of an iDevice dev consists of partly implementing Zune security flaws and creating new novel ways to make the click wheel sounds, while a majority of the time is spend just playing with (read testing) products future and past.

And there you have it, the mystery of Apple unveiled. Also on a side note to those who are worried about Job's health. He is fine but is trying a new diet consisting of Soy Nuts and Anger.

Mine goes to 11 (5, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362795)

These new TVs will be identical to other TVs sold elsewhere in the country, except that have a governor that limits the brightness to 7.

Re:Mine goes to 11 (2, Informative)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362889)

I don't think the average consumer would care too much about the power consumption of a TV or gaming console. After all, the American Dream is keeping up with the Jonses, not saving money!

Well, wait until another neo-cons is pres (-1, Troll)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362933)

At that time, he will try to outdo the other republicans and create true energy savings by limiting the tv to 1 channel to save energy. Fox news, all the time, everywhere.

Re:Mine goes to 11 (4, Funny)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362977)

except that have a governor that limits the brightness to 7.

You mean a Governator right?

Re:Mine goes to 11 (0)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362999)

LOL! Probably. A whole $18 a year? WOW! Folk will be able to buy a WHOLE KING SIZE MARS BAR A MONTH with those savings!!!!!

Re:Mine goes to 11 (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363155)

Considering that incandescent lightbulbs, on a dimmer, save next to nothing because dim bulbs use almost as much electricity as the full brightness they are rated for (since the tungsten is still heated up, just a few degrees less to make it glow not so much) - I don't think it will save much. Not sure about Plasma TVs, but I'm reasonably sure fluorescent lights in LCD can't really dim, so it's probably just the Color filter letting less light pass through when dimming the brightness setting. LEDs can dim, so new LED LCD may save a minimum of electricity.

Plasma is also an energy hog - typical 42" Plasma can suck 400w down, while same LCD takes 180w or so. What I would think they target would be vampire sets - those that are always "on", most today actually, ready to get remote input.

I miss the days of a real "off" button. If they need to save state, and don't want to wait for memristor technology, why not just a tiny bit of flash memory with the settings saved in them?

Re:Mine goes to 11 (2, Informative)

Bruiser80 (1179083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363295)

That's not exactly the reason that a dimmer doesn't save money. The dimmer is just hooked up to a resister behind the wall, which gobbles up the remaining current. Full Brightness on a normal circuit = any brightness on a dimmed circuit.

Sorry to nitpic :-)

Re:Mine goes to 11 (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363165)

These new TVs will be identical to other TVs sold elsewhere in the country, except that have a price tag that is 25% higher.

Here fixed that for you.

Re:Mine goes to 11 (2, Insightful)

sketerpot (454020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363247)

California's market is big enough that this will make energy efficiency a more important R&D goal for TV manufacturers, and in a few years the costs will come down to the point where all the new TVs meet the standard. It's just like what happened with refrigerators. Hopefully.

I've seen these (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362797)

the models where the power cord doesn't end in a 3-prong plug, but in a stationary bicycle...

Details up front (4, Insightful)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362801)

We're getting to a point where items like TVs and game systems should have power consumption ratings on them in the store, like with many kitchen appliances.

Re:Details up front (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363037)

Nintendo would sell even more consoles (to regular people I mean, not FPS fanboys).

Re:Details up front (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363047)

Yeah, because everyone calculates the $20 per year savings that one TV has over another and takes that into their voluntary decision of which to buy.

Re:Details up front (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363195)

Yeah, because everyone calculates the $20 per year savings that one TV has over another and takes that into their voluntary decision of which to buy.

Sure, why not?

Obviously if you need a feature that only one TV has you aren't going to buy a different one just to save $20/year on electricity... Just like nobody is going to buy a Wii just because it uses less power than a PS3.

But it's a TV. Pretty much all TVs do, more or less, the same thing.

If I have to choose between two comparable TVs... Roughly the same quality picture, same inputs on the back... I'd sure as hell pick the one that'll save me $20/year on electricity.

Re:Details up front (5, Insightful)

SlashDotDotDot (1356809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363309)

Yeah, because everyone calculates the $20 per year savings that one TV has over another and takes that into their voluntary decision of which to buy.

If the labeling was clear enough, I think they would take it into account.

Legislation that mandates clear, consistent labels allowing consumers to make informed decisions about their own costs seems more reasonable than legislating forbidding the sale of a whole class of products. I'm no free market fanboy, but this seems like a case where the self interest of consumers is directly in line with the goal of reduced energy consumption. The only thing missing is good information.

Re:Details up front (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363339)

Question: if you're presented with two TVs with otherwise identical specifications, but one is A-rated and the other is B-rated for efficiency, which one do you buy?

That's right: you buy the one with the glossier black surround.

Re:Details up front (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363259)

But, but, providing the customer with the information needed to make an informed decision is against everything the Free Market stands for! Commie pinko, you're probably one of those traitors who thinks that goods should actually be sold at the advertised price, and mail-in rebates actually reliably honored.

Sarcasm aside, your idea is a very good one, that really ought to have been implemented some time ago. I'm not a big fan of regulating product properties directly; but the efficient operation of the market depends on good information, so I'm all in favor of regulation to provide that.

Re:Details up front (2)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363407)

We're getting to a point where items like TVs and game systems should have power consumption ratings on them in the store, like with many kitchen appliances.

Which reminds me, why isn't power usage listed for video cards like it is for CPUs?

Yet Another (4, Interesting)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362837)

Yet another revenue stream disguised as a certifcation process....

How about cable and sat boxes that can power down (4, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362855)

How about cable and sat boxes that can power down more then they do now and DRV's that spin down the HD when they are off and have no planed shows coming up.

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (5, Interesting)

smprather (941570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363013)

I measured my DirecTV HR20 DVR with a KillAWatt. On: 41W Off: 40W

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (2, Insightful)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363015)

DRV's that spin down the HD when they are off and have no planed shows coming up.

Your DVR doesn't know if your TV is on. How useful is a DVR which doesn't offer rewind, but only records scheduled programs?

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (3, Interesting)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363117)

It's possible over HDMI at least to have the DVR know if the TV is is on or not. I know some newer TV+Blu-Ray player combinations can even have the Blu-Ray player turn the TV on, and turn the input to the correct one, all automatically when you insert a disc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Consumer_Electronics_Control [wikipedia.org]

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363279)

It's possible over HDMI at least to have the DVR know if the TV is is on or not.

Even if there is a hdmi switch box between them?

. I know some newer TV+Blu-Ray player combinations can even have the Blu-Ray player turn the TV on, and turn the input to the correct one, all automatically when you insert a disc.

That's cool as long as it can also be turned off. I routinely throw movies in while my kids are playing games, or watching a show, in anticpation of watching it shortly thereafter. They'd be pretty pissed if the moment the disc slid in the TV switched inputs on them.

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363177)

Tell me about it. My parents have a DVR and, even on standby, the whirring of the hard drives is noticeable from the other side of the room. Seems it can only distinguish between completely off and 'vroom vroom'.

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363187)

My Motorola DVR unit supplied by my cable company already reboots itself on a regular basis. Usually it's after I queue up about a hundred channel requests because it's a sluggish piece of crap and it doesn't respond in a reasonable amount of time. I can't count the number of times when I had to wait for the screen to refresh to be able to do something else. (even to power it off)

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363289)

You're lucky you can reboot your boxes. The boxes Cablevision use require you to call the service department for them to click a button to make the headend spit out the data the box needs to operate.

Meh. At least Scientific Atlanta boxes don't screw up and queue ten million button presses.

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (1)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363209)

I agree. More devices should have low-power states.

For instance, the PlayStation 3 and XBOX 360 use maximum power whether you're playing Oblivion at full HD resolution or just downloading something.

This is exactly what we need. (3, Informative)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362857)

Great, more government intervention in both the market and our lives; the net result will just be less choice and higher prices for TVs everywhere.

Smart Financial Thinking (4, Funny)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362919)

$18.48 in just a year? That new LCD HDTV will practically pay for itself!

-Peter

Re:Smart Financial Thinking (2, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363019)

$18.48 in just a year? That new LCD HDTV will practically pay for itself!

-Peter

And just when you think you recovered the cost of the TV, its time time to buy a new one! Oh, did I mention there is a special disposal fee for your old one?

Re:Smart Financial Thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363271)

Relax, that would be like buying a new tv every 25 years! I mean who can afford to stay on such an early adopters curve like that?

Re:Smart Financial Thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363159)

that's right! a free TV after only 100 years of use. Sweet deal!

Meanwhile .... (3, Funny)

molesdad (1003858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362925)

Non purchasers will save up to $1000 in the first year. lol

LAND OF THE FREE! (0, Troll)

Kerstyun (832278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362929)

Stupid CAmmunist's! If I chews to use 750 watt's pr hour for my TV, that's my choice, an non on any one elsie's bisness.

Re:LAND OF THE FREE! (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363063)

Is it really? Does anyone actually look at wattage when selecting a TV? I'd think it would secondary to size, features, resolution, color fidelity, contrast ratio, brand name, ergonomics and maybe audio quality.

Re:LAND OF THE FREE! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363299)

Do we really need another (government funded [aka my tax money]?) organization to dictate that TV manufacturers should place bigger energy stickers on their boxes?

Is it not the responsibility of the buyer to determine if this new TV will:
a.) work with their house/stereo/room/cabinet?
b.) not burn out their fuse box?
c.) not add to their electric bill significantly?

Re:LAND OF THE FREE! (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363433)

No it isn't. Planet Earth is everybody's business.

Step up and be a man, not a spoiled brat.

Savings (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362941)

Yep, you can save $18 and year and pay an extra hundred today. Sounds great for something like a TV that is only going to be used for 5 years or so anyway these days. Never mind that time value of money consideration. Thank you Nanny State for saving me from high energy bills, and myself.

Re:Savings (1)

0prime (792333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363035)

I know I've been out of college for a little while now, but do people actually blow through TVs that fast these days? At the risk of sounding old, that just seems wasteful.

Get off my lawn!

Re:Savings (2, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363413)

I know I've been out of college for a little while now, but do people actually blow through TVs that fast these days? At the risk of sounding old, that just seems wasteful.

A classic CRT tv lasted people 10-20 years.
The more recent TVs however are pretty much disposable. The early generation plasmas lose half their brightness within 5 years, and pretty much have to be replaced. Newer plasmas apparently are much better.

And the various front and rear projection technologies (DLP, LCD) all have rather expensive bulbs that need to be replaced within 3-5 years. And the money for a new bulb for your old TV is a big chunk of the price of a new TV ... and the new TV will be 1080p instead of 1080i/720p have more hdmi inputs, less latency, run at a 120Hz, etc etc etc... so buying a new TV might seem like a better deal. Sort of like buying a new cellphone or ipod is usually deemed better value than buying new batteries for your 3 year old one.

Re:Savings (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363093)

They're not doing it to save you money. They're doing it to save the earth.

'cos there's only one Earth, and you're supposed to leave it in better condition then you found it. That way the history books won't point to the "SUV era" as a bunch of greedy, self centered morons. Perhaps the first generation who had full knowledge of what was going down ecologically, but did absolutely nothing to change their obesity-driven lifestyle.

Re:Savings (3, Funny)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363311)

Typing your rant on a power-hungry computer sucking electricity from that evil coal-fired power plant. Rant on!

Re:Savings (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363461)

If the energy I use today can save ten times that in the future, I'll rant for as long as it takes.

Re:Savings (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363369)

Natural selection.

Also, why not spend that money on the efficiency of the energy production and distribution instead? It would benefit us more than just TV usage restrictions.

Re:Savings (1)

John Meacham (1112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363375)

No, they are doing it to save the power distribution infrastructure in the state. There is only so much carrying capacity, the population is increasing and I think they are starting to realize that plug-in hybrids are not that far off. By reducing the base usage by utilities, the current infrastructure lasts longer, and can support more cars, which reduces pollution, which is a big issue in many areas and a public benefit.

Re:Savings (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363381)

Its a scam though to encourage anyone to buy a more efficient TV to replace an acceptably good working TV. $18 per year over the life of the TV is probably $125, nothing close to the cost of even producing the newer more efficient TV.

My point is, it's more wasteful for the environment for people to replace good working TV's than save the $18 per year in electricity.

Re:Savings (1)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363383)

If they are doing it to save the earth, maybe California can forgo the tax revenue assessed on qualifying "energy saving" models, at least for a while. That should bring prices, if not on par, closer and encourage sales of these models in general.

Re:Savings (1)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363437)

They're not doing it to save you money. They're doing it to save the earth.

If they're hyping the cost savings instead of the environmental savings, its only because people don't really care enough about the environment, right? But the government, because it knows better than its citizens, has to trick them into doing what's best for them? Now, that's democracy in action!

This is not the droid you are looking for (2, Insightful)

segoy (641704) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362943)

Perhaps they should focus their energies (pun not intended) at something that would make a more substantial impact, such as CF or LED lighting...

Re:This is not the droid you are looking for (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363129)

Well CF is a bad horse to back due to the toxic chemicals. It's trading short term benefits for long term failure. (Rather like burying nuclear waste for future generations to worry about.) People are not going to listen to the special disposal instructions and all that toxic crap in the CF lights will wind up in our landfills, water table etc... Not to mention the health effects of the lights themselves. (Migraines and other problems.)

LED lighting may be an idea, but I believe it's got a long way to go yet to be viable. Which is I shame, as I like the glow from a nice LED.

Re:This is not the droid you are looking for (2, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363183)

Too late, CFLs are already mandated. LEDs aren't mature enough for general lighting*.

1 Yes, they exist; no they're not even close to economical even if you gave them away for free. The number of fixtures required to produce the desired general illumination levels in a typical large room (family/living) would still cost more than even the best CFLs at full retail. And there's no $/lumen savings.

Re:This is not the droid you are looking for (4, Insightful)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363363)

Perhaps they should focus their energies (pun not intended)

Dear Reader,

Please direct your attention towards my pun. Admittedly I do think it's clever, but I think that you think so highly of me, that I want you to know that I would never resort to using such a commonplace literary device in my prose. Therefore, I would like to formally renounce my attempt at humor and assure you that I am above making puns as a writer, as a pupil of language, and as citizen of Earth.

Sincerest apologies, D. Baggerson

P.S. - It was totally intended.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns [thebestpag...iverse.net]

Saves Almost $19? (1)

JonBuck (112195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362945)

Okay. So I'd save that much in the first year of ownership. But if the Tier 1 TVs that can only be sold in California costs substantially more than that (Say $30-$50), it could take years to recoup savings on the electrical bill.

Re:Saves Almost $19? (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363197)

By which time a new standard for TV called UHD (UBER-HI-DEF!!!!) will exist, and your "new" TV you're waiting to reap the benefits with will be a 60" paperweight.

Re:Saves Almost $19? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363261)

that's not to mention the recycling fee [ca.gov] that was introduced in 2003 (and revised in 2009!). The first year (and a half) of savings would go to this fee, which would most likely be $25.

Re:Saves Almost $19? (3, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363263)

Doesn't California have power problems? If so, then if they can cut the power useage from everyone, even a little bit, then it helps resolve soem of their pwoer problems.

Sometimes things are done for a bigger picture then saving you a little $

Re:Saves Almost $19? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363387)

So? Nobody's forcing you to throw out your old TV, just making the new ones more efficient.

10% of your TV's consumption goes when it's in "standby" mode. reducing that won't impact your lifestyle, will it?

(assuming you actually switch it off once in a while...)

Go green! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362949)

I wish my country had such laws.

This will cost the state revenue. (1)

Capt. Cooley (1438063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362973)

This is ridiculous. If people want an inefficient television set, they'll get it out of state if they have to (paying that state's sales tax, as opposed to ours). The government has no business telling us what sets we can and can't buy, if we're willing to pay for it.

Re:This will cost the state revenue. (1)

tehdaemon (753808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363121)

I am curious if you really mean that. Pot and hookers?

T

Re:This will cost the state revenue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363191)

And "assault rifles", but, fuck the constitution.

Re:This will cost the state revenue. (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363393)

Right, except for the sales tax part. They'll buy it from an online vendor (who have the bes prices by far anyway) and pay no sales tax since the vendor will most likely be one with no brick & mortar presence in CA, and therefore need not charge sales tax.

Yay another example of raising taxes resulting in less revenue!

Save 19$! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362979)

...and then the utilities raise their prices by 19$ because they "lost" that money. Great...

LED backlighting? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362981)

Are any LCD TVs using LED backlights like some laptops do now?

This will be effective... (1)

Churla (936633) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363005)

How exactly was it they planned on stopping people from just ordering from out of state and having them delivered?

Will the cost of a "tier 1" TV be more than the cost of a "what I actually want" TV plus shipping/delivery?

Re:This will be effective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363355)

How exactly was it they planned on stopping people from just ordering from out of state and having them delivered?

Will the cost of a "tier 1" TV be more than the cost of a "what I actually want" TV plus shipping/delivery?

they will sue any company that sells "wrong" tvs in that state. meaning if you want a normal tv you will have to wast $$ in gas to go over the border and time. sucks to be cali. ya know maybe they should just make a new power plant.. duh.

Article is incorrect (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363029)

LCD -- liquid crystal display -- sets use 43% more electricity, on average, than conventional tube TVs; larger models use proportionately more.

A same-sized LCD will use about the same as or less than a CRT with full backlight. If you lower the brightness on the backlight by half, you save proportionately.

Where they get this idea that LCDs use more power is that most people upgrading from CRT to LCD buy a bigger screen.

Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (5, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363043)

You'd think that I was stealing my electricity from the government.

But I'm not. I'm paying for it out of my own pocket, but the government still insists on regulating how much I use of it, and now even what I'm allowed to buy to use it with...

One would think that, since I'm the one PAYING for electricity (not to mention various taxes and sales taxes associated with a TV, if I had a TV), I'd be allowed to pay more and use more? Now THERE is a novel concept - if I have more money, I can use more money to get more things! Wow. And if I'm smart, I can save money by buying a more power-efficient TV! Wouldn't that be a thought...

California, frankly, is wacky :)

Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (4, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363343)

The problem with electricity is that how much a device actually uses is pretty well hidden from the user, so most people just don't know it and don't factor it into their buying decisions, so good old free market can't really work. Another thing is that many electronic devices use much more then they have to, stand-by mode is a classic case, its easy to not waste much power on it, yet many devices still do. A little regulation that nocks the makers into the right direction can be a good thing sometimes.

Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363397)

stand-by mode

a classic example : a senseo coffe machine uses 20 watts when it is off ...

Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (2, Interesting)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363349)

To the best of my knowledge, California has electricity problems.

While you can use electricity to power TVs, and the such. But if you Don't have enough power for everyone to use everythign that they want, then you need to regulate peoples power useage.

Sure, you could follow Capitolism and raise the rates for power really high. That was those that can afford it could run thier TVs, Computers, and what ever other toys they want. But then your left with people that cnnot afford to run it for essentials (like a fridge & washer/Dryer).

However, that concept does not work for the majorty of the population as well as it works for the well off. It's a little more important to make sure everyone gets some power then the weathly getting all of th power they want.

However, I could be all worng and Cali could have fixed and power problems I am remembering. But i doubt it.

Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (1)

CaptCovert (868609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363367)

The government is paying for your electricity, in a round-about manner of speaking, as they do regulate prices of power. If you want them to stay out of your business when it comes to power, perhaps they should fully de-regulate power companies as well?

Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363449)

Cough... Enron.

Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (0, Flamebait)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363425)

Apparently, California doesn't like capitalism.

Sorry? Why can't this be done indirectly? (4, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363073)

I think this is overstepping it a bit.

I'm a big a/v-phile and I dislike LCD and "flat" tv's because they don't have true black points or uniform color.

I want a CRT, and CRTs are power hungry.

This doesn't mean i'm not environmentally conscious.

I use all CFL's and avoid having anything on unless i'm making immediate use.

How about introducing power consumption rules for homes, at least maximum peak power consumption to help lessen the load on the grid by incorporating localized temporary storage?

This would also have a side benefit of helping to prevent the kind of chaos mass blackouts produce by providing a bare minimum power to, say, keep your fridge running for 24-72 hours when the grid goes.

Re:Sorry? Why can't this be done indirectly? (2, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363465)

Or why not let the blackouts happen so people will figure it out themselves and maybe by decentralized power production devices like solar panels and home wind turbines to supplement their energy usage.

You could also raise the cost of electricity to push that incentive... since it's going to cost more to generate that power.

The free market works... if the government doesn't keep feeding it money in subsidies and welfare.

E-Waste Disposal Fee (3, Informative)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363091)

In California we already pay an Electronic Waste Disposal Fee whenever we purchase a new TV that varies based on the price of the TV, but was $20-30 last time I purchased one. Yet another example of the state trying to control its citizens, and those of other US states given that California is such a large segment of the US economy, and manufacturers will be less likley to export units that meet environmental standards in other states. When I lived back in Ohio I always got a card in the package when I purcased solder that said "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.", and often see links on websites for "Your California Privicy Rights."

All it really does is hurt retailers whom are going to loose out on sales in border cities where consumers have more choice in other states (such as Nevada, Oregon or Arizona), and making life difficult for online sellers to keep track of what units they can/can not sell to CA residents. All the while, most Californians are probably watching TV on their old CRTs that are burning up energy and are probably going to be dumped in the desert somewhere when they quit working. Southern California (where energy is hardest to come by) has literally millions of square miles of desert and lots of folks moving there to find affordable housing but still commute to the LA area to find reasonable paying jobs. If they built a power plant or two up there and some manufacturing they could cut down on transportation costs, improve the quality of life of residents in the desert and the valley and not be so desperate to save power that they're going to restrict tvs and non CFL lightbulbs (wish I still had the URL for that nonsense someone was proposing about a year ago).

Re:E-Waste Disposal Fee (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363351)

that Electronic Waste Disposal Fee is necessary. it reduces the amount of heavy elements in your food. like this : the money is used to pay to set up the recycling plants, the recycling plants separate the heavy metals and other toxins from the waste, and the waste is cleaner (which, in the end ALWAYS ends up on your plate)

Re:E-Waste Disposal Fee (2, Funny)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363357)

"Good afternoon, sir, and welcome to California. Do you have any vegetables, fruit, live plants or non-Tier 1 televisions in your vehicle?"

What's next? (2, Funny)

fataugie (89032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363095)

Too many government regulations, man....too many.

Next I guess you're going to tell me I can't burn tires on Earth Day?
Good Grief!

Misleading "science" (5, Insightful)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363113)

The article [latimes.com] and in particular this "infographic" [latimes.com] is completely wrong or at least misleading. LCD TVs do not consume more power than the same sized CRT as claimed. In fact, an LCD set will consume 50% or less power than a comparably-sized CRT. Of course, if you decide to base each type of set's power consumption on "average set size" without fucking bothering to define what that average is or even bothering to keep the same average for each type of TV (!), then you can pretty much "prove" anything you want, can't you?

Hell, my neighborhood newsletter is way more popular* and produces much better advertising results** than the LA Times!

I don't know why the "California Energy Commission" would make such a preposterous claim, unless they're not comparing the same size LCD and CRT, which would be ridiculous of course. I also don't know how the LA Times could be so ignorant as to not notice this obvious error, and how they could be so irresponsible as to report such obvious nonsense without doing any research or checking with other sources, or at least questioning or pointing out the (unfair) comparison of small CRTs to large LCDs.

Educate thyself [eu-energystar.org] and read any of the dozens of results [google.com] that show LCDs use less power than CRTs.

Then wonder why the tax/power requirements isn't based on size/overall power consumption instead of just being arbitrarily assessed on LCDs in general. (Hint: it's another money grab, and what better way than to focus it on the better selling, higher-value product?)

* "popular" is defined as the percentage of my relatives that read it daily.
** "results" is defined as how many free gifts I get from advertisers.
*** Hey! Look at that! I'm full of shit but at least I cite my bullshit definitions, which is more than you can say for the LA Times and the California Energy Commission!

Re:Misleading "science" (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363203)

I would mod you if I could. I didn't even read it, let alone look at the graphic. LCD is way more efficient than CRT. I thought pretty much everyone knew that =P

Re:Misleading "science" (1)

Doc, the Weasel (827155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363431)

LCDs use more power when they are turned off, and that is where the discrepancy lies. The CEC's graph looks at yearly consumption for average households, not just the time the set is on.

Cited figures don't jibe with reality (1)

Monkey_Genius (669908) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363133)

The article states that LCD TVs use more electricity then 'conventional' tube TVs. That's absolute crap. A few years back my old Sony 27" XBR went tits-up. Its power consumption was approx. 550 watts depending on screen brightness. Knowing that LCD and plasma sets where the 'wave of the future' -yet not wanting to be an early adopter- I decided to buy a cheap 27" Phillips CRT-based TV which has a power consumption of 275 watts at full screen brightness -since I don't run it that high it's actually averages about 225 watts. New LCD TVs have power ratings in the 215 to 275 watt range depending on the screen size -the CCFL is the big power user I guess. Plasma sets are considerably higher, closer to the range of the XBR. So what kind of savings in energy do these laws hope to legislate? Ten percent? Twenty Percent? There has to be some minimum power usage for LCD TVs even if they were to go to OLED by the time frame stated -which probably won't happen- so given the dollar savings figure cited, they seem to think that they can get a fifty-percent savings -or more- through legislation. I just don't see that happening.

I'd love it if JUST ONCE... (1, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363175)

...An industry would look a state like CA that wants to foist stupid regulations upon them STRAIGHT in the eye and tell them to "go suck it". Californians just simply would have to go to other states (thus losing the morons in Sacramento some serious tax revenue) to buy these things.

What will happen is that this will make these products more expensive for those of us who live in the sane part of America. It's all about foisting a radical green agenda on the rest of us.

If California wants to be crazy, fine, to each his own. But don't force ME to have to pay for it.

Re:I'd love it if JUST ONCE... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363265)

Get back to your homework kid, you convince no one, and you're talking complete shit. Like your previous posts.

Re:I'd love it if JUST ONCE... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363277)

Shut the fuck up idiot.

Re:I'd love it if JUST ONCE... (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363391)

They don't.

They force the companies that want to do business in their state to pay for it. If those companies put some of the cost back on to you, that is between you can the company.

HDCP (1, Funny)

BovineSpirit (247170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363211)

How banning pointless encryption of signals? Encrypting the signal in the Bluray player then decrypting in the TV is a complete waste of power, why not just ban the use of HDCP?

My TV is very inefficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26363229)

My TV is probably very inefficient. It's moved zero miles since I filled its tank with gasoline. But I'll have to wait until the tank is no longer full before I can measure its MPG.

LCD is less efficient than CRT??? (1)

inputdev (1252080) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363319)

Where do they get these numbers? from TFA: "LCD -- liquid crystal display -- sets use 43% more electricity, on average, than conventional tube TVs; larger models use proportionately more." Is that true?

Peoples Republic? (4, Insightful)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363345)

I find it a little saddening that nearly everyone complains about this type of legislation while at the same time demanding that something be done about global warming.

The fundamental problem we have is that we aren't currently being billed the true cost of (most of) the power we are using. The energy companies have been getting away with polluting the environment on a massive scale for at no cost to them.

We can tackle that problem in two ways: 1) force power companies to pay to clean up their pollution. 2) Increases taxes so that Government can clean up the pollution. Either way it means that things are going to get a lot more expensive. Government isn't about to raise taxes to clean up the atmosphere and they certainly aren't going to try to make energy companies fix the problem so the only really option is to bring in strict guidelines on how much power devices can consume and hope the problem goes away.

Despite all the griping... (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363371)

...These new rules will have one good effect: all the flat-screen manufacturers will have to start investing in building LCD display panels with LED backlighting, which uses a lot less power than today's LCD panels with florescent backlights. It may also mean a lot more money poured into OLED development, since OLED displays have the potential to use a small fraction of the amount of power that even an LCD panel with LED backlighting uses.

Plasmas can be pretty power hungry (1)

Pariah (88204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363377)

A friend just gave me a 50" plasma HD TV, about 5 years old. The lights flicker when I power that thing up. I have no idea if that's normal, or it means I have lousy wiring, or if my TV is using more electricity that it should.

Interstate commerce anyone? (3, Funny)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363421)

I don't think they can do it. This falls afoul of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Environmentalism Gone Mad (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 5 years ago | (#26363459)

Saving $18.48 of energy isn't all that much energy saved doesn't help the environment that much. If anything, it may hurt the environment more due to more resources being consumed in producing the TV using a less efficient production method.

To put this in perspective, in 2008 the average price of residential electricity was 14.45 cents/kwh [doe.gov] . So saving $18.48 in energy means you saved 123.6kwh over the year. You could save that much by turning off one 100W bulb on only one day out of the week.

While it is our duty to take care of our environment, it is crazy laws like these (and people who push for these kinds of laws) that give environmentalism a bad name.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...